Citation Nr: 0003729
Decision Date: 02/14/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00
DOCKET NO. 94-24 141 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to restoration of a 10 percent rating for the
service-connected hearing loss.
2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for the
service-connected hearing loss.
3. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for the service-
connected tinnitus, currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.
4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
the service-connected otitis media.
5. Entitlement to service connection for claimed post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Julie L. Salas, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from November 1944 to
October 1946.
This matter initially came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal of rating decisions of the RO.
In November 1996, the Board remanded this matter for
additional development of the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable
disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained.
2. In a December 1988 rating action, the RO assigned a 10
percent rating for the veteran's perceptive deafness,
effective on December 18, 1987.
3. In February 1992, the RO issued a notification to the
veteran announcing its intention to reduce the 10 percent
evaluation for the service-connected perceptive deafness to a
noncompensable level effective on November 18, 1991. All due
process considerations were followed.
4. A compensable bilateral hearing loss has not been
clinically demonstrated for VA purposes as the audiological
examinations indicate no worse than level II hearing in his
right ear and level IV hearing in his left ear.
5. The veteran's tinnitus is shown to be manifested by
constant ringing in both ears.
6. The veteran's service-connected otitis media is not shown
to have been demonstrated by compensably impaired hearing,
active suppuration or aural polyps.
7. The veteran is not shown to have had combat with the
enemy in connection with his military service.
8. There is no credible corroborating evidence of the
veteran's claimed stressors to support a clear diagnosis of
PTSD.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Restoration of the 10 percent rating assigned for the
service-connected hearing loss is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1155, 5107, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.344, 4.1, 4.2, 4.85, 4.87 including Diagnostic Code
6100, 6101 (1998); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.344, 4.1, 4.2, 4.85
including Diagnostic Code 6100, 6101 (1999).
2. The criteria for the assignment of an increased
(compensable) rating for the service-connected bilateral
hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107,
7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.7, 4.85,
4.87, Diagnostic Code 6100, 6101 (1998); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,
4.7, 4.85 including Diagnostic Code 6100, 6101 (1999).
3. The claim for the assignment of a rating in excess of 10
percent for the service-connected tinnitus must be denied.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.87a, Diagnostic Code
6260 (1998); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.87
including Diagnostic Code 6260 (1999).
4. The criteria for the assignment of a compensable rating
for the service-connected otitis media have not been met.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.87a including Diagnostic
Code 6100, 6200, 6201 (1998); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.2,
4.7, 4.87 including Diagnostic Code 6100, 6200, 6201 (1999).
5. The veteran is not shown to have PTSD due to disease,
injury which was incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.303, 3.304 (1999).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
I. Restoration, increased ratings
A. Background
In December 1988, the RO assigned a 10 percent rating for the
veteran's service-connected perceptive deafness, effective on
December 18, 1987, based on findings made on VA audiometric
examination in November 1988. The results of the November
1988 VA audiometric examination included findings of pure
tone air conduction thresholds of 30, 50, 75 and 80 decibels
in the right ear at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz,
respectively. Like measurements of the left ear were 25, 50,
90 and 90 decibels. The average of the pure-tone thresholds
was 58.5, which more nearly approximates 59 decibels, for the
right ear, and 63.75, which more nearly approximates 64
decibels, for the left ear. A speech discrimination score of
80 percent was recorded for both ears.
Subsequently, by rating action dated in February 1992, the RO
informed the veteran of its intention to reduce the 10
percent rating assigned for the service-connected hearing
loss to a noncompensable evaluation, effective on November
18, 1991, based on findings made on VA audiometric evaluation
conducted in that month. All due process requirements were
followed. Results of the November 1991 VA audiometric
examination included findings of pure tone air conduction
thresholds of 30, 50, 75 and 70 decibels in the right ear at
1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz, respectively. Like
measurements of the left ear were 25, 60, 85 and 85 decibels.
The average of the pure-tone thresholds was 56.25, which more
nearly approximates 56 decibels, for the right ear, and
63.75, which more nearly approximates 64 decibels, for the
left ear. A speech discrimination score of 84 percent was
recorded for the right ear, and 80 percent for the left ear.
Pure tone testing was stated to reveal a mild sloping to
severe sensorineural hearing loss, bilaterally, with slightly
reduced speech discrimination, bilaterally.
Since the veteran had, as of this time, elected to receive
non-service connected pension benefits, it was noted that the
RO's February 1992 rating action would not affect his VA
payments. However, the RO afforded the veteran 60 days to
submit any additional evidence or pursue a hearing in order
to defend the previous 10 percent rating.
At a hearing conducted at the RO in July 1992, the veteran
testified as to the continuing difficulties he experienced
with bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. He further noted
that he had not had any recent problems with ear infections.
As noted hereinabove, in November 1996, the Board remanded
this matter for additional development of the record to
include affording the veteran an opportunity to undergo
further VA audiometric testing and an ear, nose and throat
examination.
At the VA examination for ear disease conducted in December
1998, the veteran complained of hearing loss, tinnitus and
intermittent ear infections since service. These infections
were stated to have been treated in a variety of manner,
including irrigation, ear drops and oral antibiotics. At the
present time, he was notably free o any ear drainage. His
main complaint was reported to be tinnitus, which was
described as constant and varying in intensity.
The examination revealed the auricle, tympanum and mastoid to
be unremarkable. The external ear canal was also patent with
no discharge present. The tympanic membrane was also intact
and had normal landmarks. Audiogram was noted to demonstrate
a moderate to severe high-tone sensorineural hearing loss.
No active ear disease or infection of the middle or inner ear
was found. The final diagnosis was that of high-tone
moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss with tinnitus.
VA audiometric testing was also conducted in December 1998.
His chief complaints were noted to be bilateral hearing loss
and tinnitus. He described the tinnitus as being constant in
nature and in the form of a buzzing or ringing, but less
noticeable when he is busy or preoccupied. Audiometric
examination included findings of pure tone air conduction
thresholds of 15, 40, 80 and 85 decibels in the right ear at
1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz, respectively. Like
measurements of the left ear were 20, 40, 85, and 95
decibels. The average of the pure-tone thresholds was 55
decibels for the right ear, and 60 decibels, for the left
ear. A speech discrimination score of 84 percent was
recorded for both ears. The final diagnosis was that of mild
to severe high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairment,
bilaterally. Screening otoscopy was also noted to have
revealed clear ear canals, bilaterally.
B. Analysis
1. Restoration
As noted, all due process requirements were followed when the
RO determined to reduce the 10 percent rating assigned for
the service-connected hearing loss to a noncompensable
evaluation by rating action dated in February 1992. Having
decided that the process required to reduce the veteran's
rating was correctly followed by the RO, the Board must
determine whether, given the available evidence, such a
reduction was warranted or whether the rating should be
restored to the previously assigned level.
To ignore the specific nature of the disability experienced
by the veteran when assigning a rating violates certain
essentials of rating. There must be an accurate description
of the disabling condition, with consideration being given to
the whole recorded history such that each of the elements of
the disability to be rated are correctly set forth.
38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2.
The Board notes that effective on June 10, 1999, the rating
schedule criteria for evaluating hearing impairment were
changed. The Court has held that "where the law or
regulation changes after a claim has been filed or reopened
but before the administrative or judicial appeal process has
been concluded, the version most favorable to the appellant
generally applies." White v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 519,
521 (1991). See also Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308
(1991).
The Board is therefore required to consider the veteran's
claim in light of both the former and revised schedular
rating criteria to determine whether restoration of a
compensable evaluation for the service-connected hearing loss
is warranted. The Board further notes that the differences
between the former criteria and the revised criteria are
relatively minor.
Under both the old and the new criteria, evaluations for
defective hearing are based upon organic impairment of
hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled
speech discrimination tests, along with the average hearing
threshold level as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in
the frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 cycles per
second. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (1998); 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (1999).
To evaluate the degree of disability for bilateral service-
connected hearing loss, the rating schedule establishes
eleven (11) auditory acuity levels, designated from level I
for essentially normal acuity, through level XI for profound
deafness. Id. Disability ratings for hearing impairment are
derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to
the numeric designations assigned after audiometric
evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet.App.
345 (1992).
When both the old and the new rating criteria are applied to
the results of the veteran's November 1991 audiometric test,
numeric scores of II for the right ear and IV for the left
ear are obtained. Table VII of § 4.87 (1998) and Table VII
of § 4.85 (1999) provide for the assignment of a
noncompensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6100 when the
veteran has these numeric scores. Application of both the
old and the new rating criteria to the results of the
December 1998 audiometric test yields numeric designations of
II for the right ear and III for the left ear. Once again,
according to Table VII of § 4.87 (1998) and Table VII of
§ 4.85 (1999) a noncompensable evaluation is warranted under
Diagnostic Code 6100 when the veteran has these numeric
scores. These tests can only be interpreted as reflecting
improvement in the service-connected hearing loss in terms of
the Rating Schedule in the Board's opinion.
In reviewing the medical evidence of record in light of the
whole recorded history, the Board finds that restoration of
the 10 percent rating for the service-connected hearing loss
is inappropriate as the preponderance of the evidence is
against restoration.
2. Increased ratings
As a preliminary matter, the Board finds that the veteran's
claims for increased compensation benefits are "well
grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). The
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court)
has held that, when a veteran claims a service-connected
disability has increased in severity, the claim is well
grounded. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992).
When a veteran submits a well-grounded claim, VA must assist
him in developing facts pertinent to that claim. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a). The Board is satisfied that all available
relevant evidence has been obtained regarding the claim, and
that no further assistance to the veteran is required to
comply with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
The Court has also stated that where entitlement to
compensation has already been established and an increase in
the disability rating is at issue, the present level of
disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7
Vet.App. 55 (1994).
In accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41, and Schafrath
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991), the Board has reviewed
the service medical records and all other evidence of record
pertaining to the history of the veteran's service-connected
disabilities. The Board has found nothing in the historical
record which would lead to the conclusion that the current
evidence of record is not adequate for rating purposes.
Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria
set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating
Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Board attempts to
determine the extent to which the veteran's disability
adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary
conditions of daily life, and the assigned rating is based,
as far as practicable, upon the average impairment of earning
capacity in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.1.
Regulations require that where there is a question as to
which of two evaluations is to be applied, the higher
evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more
nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating.
Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.7.
a. Hearing loss
As noted hereinabove, the most recent VA examination in
December 1998 provides for the assignment of a noncompensable
evaluation under both the old and the new rating criteria for
hearing impairment. Consequently, the preponderance of the
evidence is against the assignment of a compensable
evaluation for the veteran's service-connected hearing loss.
b. Tinnitus
The veteran's service-connected tinnitus is currently rated
10 percent disabling under the criteria in the VA Schedule
for Rating Disabilities, Diagnostic Code 6260, for recurrent
tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260 (1999).
This is the maximum evaluation available under that Code.
Earlier evaluations had considered the provisions of
38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6260 (1998). Under these
provisions, a maximum evaluation of 10 percent was assigned
for persistent tinnitus as a symptom of head injury,
concussion or acoustic trauma.
As previously noted, however, effective on June 10, 1999, the
rating schedule criteria for evaluating hearing impairment
were changed. The Board is therefore required to consider
the veteran's claim in light of both the former and revised
schedular rating criteria.
As noted above, in this instance, the RO has assigned a 10
percent evaluation for recurrent tinnitus under Diagnostic
Code 6260. This is the maximum disability evaluation
provided by the Rating Schedule for this condition under both
the old and the new criteria; therefore, the claim for an
increased rating in excess of 10 percent for the service-
connected tinnitus must be denied.
c. Otitis media
The veteran's service-connected otitis media is currently
rated as noncompensably disabling under the criteria in the
VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, Diagnostic Code 6201,
for chronic nonsuppurative otitis media with effusion (serous
otitis media). 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6201
(1999).
Under this Diagnostic Code, the veteran's disability is to be
rated on the basis of any demonstrated hearing impairment. A
10 percent rating may also be assigned for chronic otitis
media under Diagnostic Code 6200 during suppuration or with
aural polyps. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6200 (1999).
Earlier evaluations had considered the provisions of
38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6201 (1998). Under these
provisions, otitis media, chronic, catarrhal, was also rated
based on hearing impairment. Under Diagnostic Code, 6200, a
10 percent evaluation was assigned for otitis media,
suppurative, chronic, during the continuance of the
suppurative process. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6200
(1998).
As noted above, effective on June 10, 1999, the rating
schedule criteria for evaluating hearing impairment were
changed. The Board is therefore required to consider the
veteran's claim in light of both the former and revised
schedular rating criteria.
Because audiological testing concluded that a compensable
evaluation was not warranted for the veteran's hearing loss
under either the old or the new criteria, a compensable
evaluation is also not warranted for the service-connected
otitis media under either the old or new criteria. 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6201 (1998); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87,
Diagnostic Code 6201 (1999). Furthermore, most recent VA
examination in December 1998 did not detect the presence of
any active ear disease, consequently, the veteran would also
not be entitled to a compensable evaluation under either the
old or new criteria contained in Diagnostic Code 6200.
38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6200 (1998); 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6200 (1999).
It is noted that in the remand dated in November 1996, the
Board pointed out that the veteran's representative had
claimed entitlement to an extraschedular award of benefits in
accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), specifically in
regard to his hearing loss. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) provides
that where the disability picture is so exceptional or
unusual that the normal provisions of the rating schedule
would not adequately compensate the veteran for his service-
connected disability, then an extraschedular evaluation will
be assigned.
The Board notes that there is no indication that the
schedular criteria are inadequate for the purpose of
evaluating the veteran's service-connected disabilities,
since there has been no showing that they have caused marked
interference with his employment (i.e., beyond that
contemplated in the assigned evaluation), or necessitated
frequent periods of hospitalization, or that his disabilities
otherwise have rendered impracticable the application of the
regular schedular standards.
As evidence has not been presented to show that the veteran's
current disability picture is not adequately compensated by
the actual provisions of the rating schedule, the Board finds
that consideration under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321
is not appropriate.
II. Service connection -- PTSD
As a preliminary matter, the Board finds that the veteran
claim is plausible and capable of substantiation, and thus
well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
There is medical evidence of PTSD due to incidents described
by the veteran, which are presumed credible for determining
well groundedness. King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19, 21 (1993).
When a veteran submits a well-grounded claim, VA must assist
him in developing facts pertinent to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a). The Board is satisfied that all available
relevant evidence has been obtained regarding the claims, and
that no further assistance to the veteran is required to
comply with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
Service connection may be established for disability
resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted
in line of duty, or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury
suffered or disease contracted in line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The regulations provide that
service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed
after discharge when all the evidence, including that
pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was
incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). If the disorder
is a chronic disease, service connection may be granted if
manifest to a degree of 10 percent within the presumptive
period; the presumptive period for psychoses is one year.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.
In determining whether service connection is warranted for a
disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the
evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with
the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a
preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which
case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.
49 (1990).
Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence
establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, credible
supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor
actually occurred, and a link, established by medical
evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed in-
service stressor. If the evidence establishes that the
veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed
stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that
the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances,
conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the
veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of
the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).
The Court, citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), has discussed the
three requisite elements for eligibility for service
connection for PTSD: (1) A current, clear medical diagnosis
of PTSD (presumed to include the adequacy of the PTSD
symptomatology and the sufficiency of a claimed in-service
stressor); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed
in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical
evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and
the specific claimed in-service stressor. Cohen v. Brown, 10
Vet. App. 128 (1997).
Where it is determined that the veteran was engaged in combat
with the enemy and the claimed stressors are related to such
combat, the veteran's lay testimony regarding claimed
stressors must be accepted as conclusive as to their
occurrence and no further development for corroborative
evidence will be required, provided that the veteran's
testimony is found to be satisfactory and consistent with the
circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b).
The Board notes that a medical diagnosis that the veteran
currently suffers from PTSD (element 1) has been rendered-
the sufficiency of the alleged stressors and the adequacy of
symptomatology to support such a diagnosis are not
questioned. Furthermore, the diagnosis of PTSD is based on
stressors related to his service as recounted by the veteran
(element 3). The RO's decision to deny service connection
for PTSD, was based entirely on its inability to verify the
veteran's alleged stressors (element 2). Thus, the Board's
analysis primarily will address the second element discussed
in Cohen-that is, whether the in-service stressors occurred.
The veteran contends that he suffers from PTSD due to events
he experienced in service. His stressors included: combat
experiences in Germany; exposure to bombing by allied
aircraft; witnessing a swimming pool full of dead babies;
being wounded by an exploding shell; and assisting in the
treatment of wounded.
Notations within the claims file indicate that the veteran's
service personnel records were likely destroyed in a fire at
the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. However, the
veteran's DD Form 214 lists his military occupational
specialty as mechanic. It was further noted on his
separation qualification record that he performed maintenance
on military vehicles and supervised the work of four
mechanics.
In a March 1998 report, the U.S. Armed Services Center for
Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR) responded to an RO
request concerning the veteran's PTSD claim. The RO's
request included copies of the veteran's separation document
and a copy of a medical report indicating the unit to which
he was assigned during the period in question. It also
included the dates of the veteran's arrival in and departure
from the European Theater of Operations and a short summary
of the veteran's alleged stressors.
The Board finds it significant to note in this regard, that,
in December 1996, the RO sent the veteran a letter requesting
that he complete a questionnaire designed to assist the
veteran in providing specific information as to the stressors
he experienced in service. The veteran failed to respond to
this request. The Board notes that the VA's duty to assist
is not a one-way street. If the veteran wishes help, he
cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where his
own actions are essential in obtaining the putative evidence.
Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 191 (1991); Hayes v. Brown, 5
Vet. App. 60, 68 (1993).
In response to the RO's correspondence, the USASCRUR enclosed
copies of April, May and June histories submitted by the 6th
Armored Infantry Battalion (AIB) in 1945, which documented
the locations and combat actions of the unit during the
reporting period. Although the histories indicated that the
reporting unit suffered casualties during this period, they
did not document an incident involving bodies in a pool, nor
was the USASCRUR able to document that the veteran assisted
with casualties. Also enclosed was a list of individuals
assigned to the 6th AIB who were awarded the Good Conduct
Medal with the veteran's name highlighted.
As noted hereinabove, if the veteran had combat with the
enemy, and his alleged stressors are consistent with such
combat service, his lay testimony regarding the claimed
stressors must be accepted as conclusive as to their
occurrence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b). The Board notes that
there is no evidence suggesting that the veteran was involved
in combat with the enemy. In this regard, the veteran is not
shown to have received any awards or decorations for valor,
combat experience or combat injuries or to have other
evidence even suggesting that he had actual combat with the
enemy. Where the veteran did not serve in combat or the
stressor is not related to combat, the veteran's lay
testimony, by itself, will not be enough to establish the
occurrence of the alleged stressor. Instead, the record must
contain evidence which corroborates the veteran's testimony
as to the occurrence of the claimed stressor. 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d); West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App.
70 (1994). Thus, it is necessary to address the matter of
whether there is sufficient corroboration of the claimed
stressors in this case.
The Board finds that the veteran's claimed stressors have not
been corroborated. The USASCRUR was unable to verify the
incident involving the swimming pool or that the veteran had
assisted with casualties. The Board would emphasize that it
is not bound to accept either the veteran's uncorroborated
account of his stressful experiences or the opinion of VA or
private health professionals who, relying on the history
related by the veteran, have diagnosed the veteran as having
PTSD. See Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 229, 233 (1993).
Although the current evidentiary record shows that PTSD has
been diagnosed, the question of whether a specific event
reported by a veteran as a stressor is valid is a question of
fact for the Board to decide, involving as it does factors
which are historical. Although some health professionals
apparently have accepted the veteran's own accounts of some
unspecified experiences during service, VA is not required to
do the same, charged as it is with the duty to assess the
credibility and weight to be given to the evidence. Wood v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Except for the veteran's
uncorroborated statements, there is no evidence to support
the veteran's assertions that he experienced any of the
claimed stressors. As such, the Board finds that the
preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim
of service connection for PTSD.
To summarize, the Board finds that there is no credible
evidence supporting the veteran's allegations; thus, the
second requisite element for eligibility for service
connection for PTSD, as discussed in Cohen v. Brown, and as
required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), has not been met.
ORDER
Restoration of a 10 percent rating for the service-connected
hearing loss is denied.
An increased rating for the service-connected hearing loss is
denied.
The claim for an increased rating for the service-connected
tinnitus is denied.
An increased rating for the service-connected otitis media is
denied.
Service connection for PTSD is denied.
STEPHEN L. WILKINS
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals